FOF 6.3 Released (Use this thread to discuss the patch, changes, impressions, etc.) [Archive]

View Full Version : FOF 6.3 Released (Use this thread to discuss the patch, changes, impressions, etc.)

Ben E Lou

12-29-2009, 02:30 AM

The following changes are included in the 6.3 update, along with everything changed through 6.2:

Added new 2009 player file.
Adjust contract demands to reflect the new salary cap numbers. Note that because of this change, those of you in multi-player leagues should try and upgrade at the same time your commissioner upgrades (though if your commissioner is aware of how the changes will manifest, he can instruct you on how you should alter contract offers.
Tweaks to the contract valuation algorithm (can't really explain tweaks without detailing the algorithms, which would give too much away).
Several rather large changes in the play-resolution engine, particularly to the passing game. Again, I'm not going to provide details, but this will have a significant impact on game-planning. I'm aware there will be complaints at first, because there will be a learning curve and it might appear that game-planning has less impact than in the past. But I think once you're used to these changes, it will make for a more enjoyable experience as you'll have to better tailor your plan to your talent. This is probably the biggest change in the engine in five years.
Add normal substitution for nickel and dime packages on defense.
Tweak use of individual blitzers in terms of interpretation of blitz percentage settings.
Another attempt to improve the field-goal and play-calling logic at the end of the first half, particularly when your team has the lead.
Tweak substitution algorithm for starting quarterbacks.
Fix a bug with how summer-league experience is applied to each position.
An attempt to prevent Solevision from crashing after use of the save-as function, though this problem could not be duplicated.
Apply the tripping penalty as an in-play foul rather than as a personal foul.
Fix a bug with stadium condition being set to an invalid value - this will not correct in existing games until the beginning of a new season.
Created a new home state selection algorithm for new players. This algorithm reflects the current state of the NFL rather than just the population of the United States. Expect more quarterbacks from California and more wide receivers from Florida.
Try and make Front Office Football a native Vista application (the help file is still outdated). The electronic license portion, however, remains an XP application and still requires administrative privileges on first run.
Tweak (very small) the free agency AI player acquisition logic. This still needs a redesign in places, far too much for just an update.
Add an ordering of the importance of games during the regular season. The top game is shown on channel 2, on down to channel 17.
Tweak (very small) the player generator. This includes improving linebackers, safeties and fullbacks.
Tweak the TCY converter. Primarily giving tight ends a big-play rating and reducing punt and kick return abilities.
Don't allow the AI to call a goal-line defense where it's horribly inappropriate.
Provide more instructive error messages when loading incomplete or corrupted saved games.Solecismic Software: Home of Front Office Football (http://www.solecismic.com/support/index.php)

Ben E Lou

12-29-2009, 02:33 AM

Uh, wow.

Lintyfresh85

12-29-2009, 02:36 AM

Any idea what the passing/game planning changes mean?

Front Office Midget

12-29-2009, 02:41 AM

I sort of wish this would have been released earlier in the day, so I could have come home to read lots of discussion. I'm interested in seeing how this all unfolds...

Solecismic

12-29-2009, 02:44 AM

I'm glad I could update the game again this year. I would have liked to create a full new version, but was unable to put the full plan into place.

The engine changes will, I'm sure, be very different for you at first. I did a huge amount of studying of play results in the NFL over the past two years and concluded I needed to rebalance how the engine resolves passing plays. The NFL official game logs have a lot more data than in the past.

I'm finding extreme game plans generate fewer wild numbers. Without even trying to limit extreme game plans. That's encouraging. Though I know our veteran game planners will soon adjust in ways I can't even imagine.

I won't detail the changes. It would require explaining too much about how the game uses ratings. And there are too many changes to explain in full. I rewrote about 500 lines of code here. Usually that's more than I would like to do for an update, but I thought it was necessary.

Again, I'm glad I can keep the game fresh and hope I can remain in this business for at least another decade.

TheMeat

12-29-2009, 02:46 AM

You're tellin me! Much more than anticipated and sounds fun. This game engine change has rekindled my desire to break out the testing macros!!!!!

Thank you Jim, you haven't forgotten us... sniff...

And the Nickle/Dime substitutions... Glorious, even though I'd been thoroughly abusing that I'm glad I have to worry about depth again.

Awesome, just awesome.

Ben E Lou

12-29-2009, 02:47 AM

Man...some good-looking stuff here. Ones that intrigue me at first glance...

Tweaks to the contract valuation algorithm (can't really explain tweaks without detailing the algorithms, which would give too much away). hmmmm...nerfing of the one-year deal? I realize Jim shouldn't give too much detail, but maybe a comment about what used to work that won't work as well?
Several rather large changes in the play-resolution engine, particularly to the passing game. Again, I'm not going to provide details, but this will have a significant impact on game-planning. I'm aware there will be complaints at first, because there will be a learning curve and it might appear that game-planning has less impact than in the past. But I think once you're used to these changes, it will make for a more enjoyable experience as you'll have to better tailor your plan to your talent. This is probably the biggest change in the engine in five years. If this works as advertised, I'll be thrilled. I've been using the same game plan in every single MP league for probably 2 years real-time.
Another attempt to improve the field-goal and play-calling logic at the end of the first half, particularly when your team has the lead. Good to see this. At times, the game would act like you were protecting a lead at the end of the game (as in run the ball three times inside the 20 with 45 seconds to go, then kick the FG.)
Tweak (very small) the free agency AI player acquisition logic. This still needs a redesign in places, far too much for just an update. Hmmm...not sure what this means. Maybe for SP only? (AI) Maybe we can get Jim to weigh in here...
Add an ordering of the importance of games during the regular season. The top game is shown on channel 2, on down to channel 17. Heh. StelmackSoft goes live!
Tweak (very small) the player generator. This includes improving linebackers, safeties and fullbacks. I noticed some issues with LBs. Hadn't seen anything with FB/S, but I'm down with anything that might make the running game more vital.
Tweak the TCY converter. Primarily giving tight ends a big-play rating and reducing punt and kick return abilities. I'll have to give this another look then. I'd love for this to be a viable option.
Don't allow the AI to call a goal-line defense where it's horribly inappropriate. Should be very big for Rexers.

Solecismic

12-29-2009, 02:54 AM

Man...some good-looking stuff here. Ones that intrigue me at first glance...

hmmmm...nerfing of the one-year deal? I realize Jim shouldn't give too much detail, but maybe a comment about what used to work that won't work as well?

Just a tiny change. No attempt to go into the logic of how long a contract will work. The problem is that the minimum salary continues to drop as a percentage of the cap. The NFLPA is, I'm sure, aware of that. It makes it far too easy in real life to stay under the cap. And easier and easier within the game. I'm just trying to keep up with the NFL, which is itself years behind now.

This is something worth revisiting in future versions of the game.
Tweak (very small) the free agency AI player acquisition logic. This still needs a redesign in places, far too much for just an update. [/B]Hmmm...not sure what this means. Maybe for SP only? (AI) Maybe we can get Jim to weigh in here...

Just a slight change to try and get AI teams to do a better job offering better free agents to fill their holes. Again, that's something that needs a full rewrite in places.

Both these changes will have only a small effect on game play. You probably won't even notice.

Julio Riddols

12-29-2009, 03:02 AM

Holy moses... Now thats an update I can get behind.

Ben E Lou

12-29-2009, 03:08 AM

And the Nickle/Dime substitutions... Glorious, even though I'd been thoroughly abusing that I'm glad I have to worry about depth again.Agreed on all counts here. ;)

Ben E Lou

12-29-2009, 03:20 AM

Icy

12-29-2009, 03:23 AM

And the Nickle/Dime substitutions... Glorious, even though I'd been thoroughly abusing that I'm glad I have to worry about depth again.

Awesome, just awesome.

Agree, this is the biggest change towards realism and it's really welcome. Also looking forward to see the tweaks to the passing engine.

Too bad Jim couldn't finish a new FOF, but big thanks for still offering this nice update for free.

Really hope you will find the time to finish it in the future, the desktop text sims scene seems to be slowly dying and needs more releases from all the companies to raise the enthusiasm again. Probably due to it being a niche market where most of developers have it as hobby and with the global crisis they have been forced to work more hours in their regular jobs, leaving less time for their passion (and i'm referring to myself too not as developer but as designer).

Hope the golden years will be back, but i guess the genre will die with us hardcore gamers, as most of kids prefer the fast paced console games or the browser based multiplayer ones.

Ben E Lou

12-29-2009, 03:39 AM

One thing I don't find in the FAQ that *seems* obvious, but I want to make sure: do we now need to drop the MP files in the "leagues" folder in the new location?

Ben E Lou

12-29-2009, 04:17 AM

Wow. I just created a new game, drafted an offensive juggernaut team (first 20 picks were on offense, then let the AI pick the rest), and loaded up the ol' Lowcountry Shuffle game plan--the one that's produced something absurd like maybe 10 out of my last 15 MP seasons having 50 TD passes or more. Loading up that kind of team would always give me a 13-16 win team in SP testing.

7-9 on the first try.

I've since loaded up several other old game plans, and I've yet to finish over 9-7 in about 10 trials. I guess defense might actually matter now.

I've got some work to do. Nice!

Played around more with this team. Went with Rex offense and Rex defense for several runs of the same season. Theoretically, a team like this (league's worst defensive talent and league's best offensive talent) ought to be a little worse than mediocre, because in the first few seasons of a drafted league, defense is ahead of the offense because of cohesion. (Of course, we all know that in past versions, even with the cohesion issue, offense trumped defense significantly.) SOS would make a difference, of course, so I've included that.

<table style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 270pt;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="360"><col style="width: 57pt;" width="76"> <col style="width: 48pt;" span="2" width="64"> <col style="width: 49pt;" width="65"> <col style="width: 68pt;" width="91"> <tbody><tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="border-style: solid none; border-color: rgb(79, 129, 189) -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 0.5pt medium; height: 15pt; width: 57pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center" height="20" width="76">Trial</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-style: solid none; border-color: rgb(79, 129, 189) -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 0.5pt medium; width: 48pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center" width="64">W</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-style: solid none; border-color: rgb(79, 129, 189) -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 0.5pt medium; width: 48pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center" width="64">L</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-style: solid none; border-color: rgb(79, 129, 189) -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 0.5pt medium; width: 49pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center" width="65">WinPct</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-style: solid none; border-color: rgb(79, 129, 189) -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 0.5pt medium; width: 68pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center" width="91">OppWinPct</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; height: 15pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center" height="20">1</td> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">9</td> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">7</td> <td class="xl65" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.563</td> <td class="xl65" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.484</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height: 15pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center" height="20">2</td> <td class="xl64" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">10</td> <td class="xl64" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">6</td> <td class="xl65" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">0.625</td> <td class="xl65" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">0.461</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; height: 15pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center" height="20">3</td> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">9</td> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">7</td> <td class="xl65" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.563</td> <td class="xl65" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.453</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height: 15pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center" height="20">4</td> <td class="xl64" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">5</td> <td class="xl64" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">11</td> <td class="xl65" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">0.313</td> <td class="xl65" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">0.512</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; height: 15pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center" height="20">5</td> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">8.5</td> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">7.5</td> <td class="xl65" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.531</td> <td class="xl65" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.455</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height: 15pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center" height="20">6</td> <td class="xl64" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">9</td> <td class="xl64" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">7</td> <td class="xl65" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">0.563</td> <td class="xl65" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">0.473</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; height: 15pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center" height="20">7</td> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">7</td> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">9</td> <td class="xl65" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.438</td> <td class="xl65" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.490</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height: 15pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center" height="20">8</td> <td class="xl64" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">8</td> <td class="xl64" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">8</td> <td class="xl65" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">0.500</td> <td class="xl65" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">0.461</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; height: 15pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center" height="20">9</td> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">4</td> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">12</td> <td class="xl65" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.250</td> <td class="xl65" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.479</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height: 15pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center" height="20">10</td> <td class="xl64" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">6</td> <td class="xl64" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">10</td> <td class="xl65" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">0.375</td> <td class="xl65" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">0.496</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; height: 15pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center" height="20">11</td> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">10</td> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">6</td> <td class="xl65" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.625</td> <td class="xl65" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.506</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height: 15pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center" height="20">12</td> <td class="xl64" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">5</td> <td class="xl64" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">11</td> <td class="xl65" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">0.313</td> <td class="xl65" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">0.520</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; height: 15pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center" height="20">13</td> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">7</td> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">9</td> <td class="xl65" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.438</td> <td class="xl65" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.473</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height: 15pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center" height="20">14</td> <td class="xl64" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">7</td> <td class="xl64" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">9</td> <td class="xl65" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">0.438</td> <td class="xl65" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">0.488</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="border-style: none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color rgb(79, 129, 189); border-width: medium medium 0.5pt; background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; height: 15pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center" height="20">15</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-style: none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color rgb(79, 129, 189); border-width: medium medium 0.5pt; background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">8</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-style: none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color rgb(79, 129, 189); border-width: medium medium 0.5pt; background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">8</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-style: none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color rgb(79, 129, 189); border-width: medium medium 0.5pt; background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.500</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-style: none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color rgb(79, 129, 189); border-width: medium medium 0.5pt; background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.518</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height: 15pt;" align="center" height="20">
</td> <td class="xl64" align="center">112.5</td> <td class="xl64" align="center">127.5</td> <td class="xl65" align="center">0.469</td> <td class="xl65" align="center">0.485</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

The team is performing pretty much exactly how I would hope/expect that it would, passing the first sniff test for me with flying colors. This patch could be the kind of game-changer many of us have wanted.

FFL Buffalo Bills

12-29-2009, 04:44 AM

wow alot of changes for sure.

Will any of this improve the ability to Go for it on 4th down. When ever ya want. Like 4th and 1 on the 1,2,3,4,5 instead of kicking FG's That just kills my team. Always to me means everytime Im in that situation. And it NEVER happens.

Hammer

12-29-2009, 05:15 AM

Played around more with this team. Went with Rex offense and Rex defense for several runs of the same season. Theoretically, a team like this (league's worst defensive talent and league's best offensive talent) ought to be a little worse than mediocre, because in the first few seasons of a drafted league, defense is ahead of the offense because of cohesion. (Of course, we all know that in past versions, even with the cohesion issue, offense trumped defense significantly.) SOS would make a difference, of course, so I've included that.

<table style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 270pt;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="360"><col style="width: 57pt;" width="76"> <col style="width: 48pt;" span="2" width="64"> <col style="width: 49pt;" width="65"> <col style="width: 68pt;" width="91"> <tbody><tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="border-style: solid none; border-color: rgb(79, 129, 189) -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 0.5pt medium; height: 15pt; width: 57pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center" height="20" width="76">Trial</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-style: solid none; border-color: rgb(79, 129, 189) -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 0.5pt medium; width: 48pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center" width="64">W</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-style: solid none; border-color: rgb(79, 129, 189) -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 0.5pt medium; width: 48pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center" width="64">L</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-style: solid none; border-color: rgb(79, 129, 189) -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 0.5pt medium; width: 49pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center" width="65">WinPct</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-style: solid none; border-color: rgb(79, 129, 189) -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 0.5pt medium; width: 68pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center" width="91">OppWinPct</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; height: 15pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center" height="20">1</td> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">9</td> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">7</td> <td class="xl65" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.563</td> <td class="xl65" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.484</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height: 15pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center" height="20">2</td> <td class="xl64" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">10</td> <td class="xl64" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">6</td> <td class="xl65" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">0.625</td> <td class="xl65" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">0.461</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; height: 15pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center" height="20">3</td> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">9</td> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">7</td> <td class="xl65" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.563</td> <td class="xl65" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.453</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height: 15pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center" height="20">4</td> <td class="xl64" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">5</td> <td class="xl64" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">11</td> <td class="xl65" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">0.313</td> <td class="xl65" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">0.512</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; height: 15pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center" height="20">5</td> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">8.5</td> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">7.5</td> <td class="xl65" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.531</td> <td class="xl65" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.455</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height: 15pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center" height="20">6</td> <td class="xl64" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">9</td> <td class="xl64" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">7</td> <td class="xl65" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">0.563</td> <td class="xl65" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">0.473</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; height: 15pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center" height="20">7</td> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">7</td> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">9</td> <td class="xl65" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.438</td> <td class="xl65" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.490</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height: 15pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center" height="20">8</td> <td class="xl64" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">8</td> <td class="xl64" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">8</td> <td class="xl65" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">0.500</td> <td class="xl65" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">0.461</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; height: 15pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center" height="20">9</td> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">4</td> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">12</td> <td class="xl65" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.250</td> <td class="xl65" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.479</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height: 15pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center" height="20">10</td> <td class="xl64" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">6</td> <td class="xl64" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">10</td> <td class="xl65" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">0.375</td> <td class="xl65" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">0.496</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; height: 15pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center" height="20">11</td> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">10</td> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">6</td> <td class="xl65" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.625</td> <td class="xl65" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.506</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height: 15pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center" height="20">12</td> <td class="xl64" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">5</td> <td class="xl64" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">11</td> <td class="xl65" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">0.313</td> <td class="xl65" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">0.520</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; height: 15pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center" height="20">13</td> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">7</td> <td class="xl64" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">9</td> <td class="xl65" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.438</td> <td class="xl65" style="background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.473</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height: 15pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center" height="20">14</td> <td class="xl64" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">7</td> <td class="xl64" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">9</td> <td class="xl65" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">0.438</td> <td class="xl65" style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri;" align="center">0.488</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="border-style: none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color rgb(79, 129, 189); border-width: medium medium 0.5pt; background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; height: 15pt; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center" height="20">15</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-style: none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color rgb(79, 129, 189); border-width: medium medium 0.5pt; background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">8</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-style: none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color rgb(79, 129, 189); border-width: medium medium 0.5pt; background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">8</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-style: none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color rgb(79, 129, 189); border-width: medium medium 0.5pt; background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.500</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-style: none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color rgb(79, 129, 189); border-width: medium medium 0.5pt; background: rgb(219, 229, 241) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(55, 96, 145); font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" align="center">0.518</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height: 15pt;" align="center" height="20">
</td> <td class="xl64" align="center">112.5</td> <td class="xl64" align="center">127.5</td> <td class="xl65" align="center">0.469</td> <td class="xl65" align="center">0.485</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

The team is performing pretty much exactly how I would hope/expect that it would, passing the first sniff test for me with flying colors. This patch could be the kind of game-changer many of us have wanted.

Very encouraging. I am going to go the opposite way, load up on defense and neglect the offense. Hopefully we will see something around .500, or just above.

Ben E Lou

12-29-2009, 05:17 AM

Excellent. I'm simming forward about 15 seasons to look at talent, stats, etc. So far, it looks like the crazy TD pass numbers are falling into line with reality fairly well.

RedKingGold

12-29-2009, 05:36 AM

To me this, these tweaks are pretty much as good as a new game release.

We may have to re-look into the TCY-FOF conversion process again. If it's fixed, that may truly re-ingivorate my interest in SP.

MIJB#19

12-29-2009, 07:13 AM

Some interesting changes indeed, some resulting in additional questions on the matter.

•Adjust contract demands to reflect the new salary cap numbers. Note that because of this change, those of you in multi-player leagues should try and upgrade at the same time your commissioner upgrades (though if your commissioner is aware of how the changes will manifest, he can instruct you on how you should alter contract offers.
•Tweaks to the contract valuation algorithm (can't really explain tweaks without detailing the algorithms, which would give too much away).Nothing to complain here. This sounds like it'll be a good fix. I do wonder: do these fixes make the contract-restrictions that many MP leagues picked a moot point, or will they still be required to avoid things turning into a one-year only party?

•Several rather large changes in the play-resolution engine, particularly to the passing game. Again, I'm not going to provide details, but this will have a significant impact on game-planning. I'm aware there will be complaints at first, because there will be a learning curve and it might appear that game-planning has less impact than in the past. But I think once you're used to these changes, it will make for a more enjoyable experience as you'll have to better tailor your plan to your talent. This is probably the biggest change in the engine in five years.Mixed feelings from this comment.

A fix was required, the game had turned into a race to have the best QB-RB-WR-WR combo, where people can get away with (and even benefit from) neglecting other parts of their team. At the same time I don't understand the need for a learning curve to enjoy the game. Doesn't it just mean that going back to game planning to the strenghts of the players will be more important than having the right bars at WR?

•Another attempt to improve the field-goal and play-calling logic at the end of the first half, particularly when your team has the lead.If this included a fix to the 'wrong team calling the time out' part, I think I'm going to be really happy here.

•Tweak substitution algorithm for starting quarterbacks.Would it be possible to tell a bit more about this fix? Right now it seems to be a bit of a mystery when the QB1 gets pulled, or when QB2 gets pulled after that.

•Fix a bug with how summer-league experience is applied to each position.excellent.

•Add an ordering of the importance of games during the regular season. The top game is shown on channel 2, on down to channel 17.Quoted this one as it may seem to not be an important fix, but for the SP environment I think it's a nice immersion booster. Small things sometimes do matter.

•Don't allow the AI to call a goal-line defense where it's horribly inappropriate.Just to avoid confusion between different interpretations of the term AI (I'm expecting some to read that just as the non-human opponent), is my assumption correct that we're talking about the simming of games here and not the part of the game where people go into play calling mode against a game-controlled team?

Ben E Lou

12-29-2009, 07:22 AM

Nothing to complain here. This sounds like it'll be a good fix. I do wonder: do these fixes make the contract-restrictions that many MP leagues picked a moot point, or will they still be required to avoid things turning into a one-year only party?Based on what Jim said in response to me earlier, it sounds like one-year deals still work, and that it's actually *easier* now to keep a team together. He's going for realism there. I'd argue that the "realism" solution is less fun, but I get where he's coming from. This was his response on that...

"Just a tiny change. No attempt to go into the logic of how long a contract will work. The problem is that the minimum salary continues to drop as a percentage of the cap. The NFLPA is, I'm sure, aware of that. It makes it far too easy in real life to stay under the cap. And easier and easier within the game. I'm just trying to keep up with the NFL, which is itself years behind now."

Just to avoid confusion between different interpretations of the term AI (I'm expecting some to read that just as the non-human opponent), is my assumption correct that we're talking about the simming of games here and not the part of the game where people go into play calling mode against a game-controlled team?Based on the tests I've run on that, it's the simming of games. I set my human-run team to HEAVY run-aggressive and GL, and it only did GL in places where GL made some sense--never on 1st and 10.

Ben E Lou

12-29-2009, 07:42 AM

Yoda

12-29-2009, 08:12 AM

Damn, it's a shame my wife isn't going on a trip soon. ;)

Draft Dodger

12-29-2009, 08:16 AM

this is really cool

Subby

12-29-2009, 08:28 AM

As good as getting a new game, in my opinion.

Jim delivers. Again.

Mistwood19

12-29-2009, 08:38 AM

Damn, it's a shame my wife isn't going on a trip soon. ;)

And you'll really let that stop you???

Yoda

12-29-2009, 08:40 AM

And you'll really let that stop you???

From testing, yes. Especially since I still have to finish up on her website. :(

RedKingGold

12-29-2009, 08:49 AM

RedKingGold

12-29-2009, 08:50 AM

(for those who don't know, I love me some faggoty offensive gameplans pre-patch)

Super Ugly

12-29-2009, 08:51 AM

Fabbo. Thanks Jim!

FrankF199

12-29-2009, 08:53 AM

QuikSand

12-29-2009, 09:15 AM

Just checking in for the first time, and I'm overwhelmed by the list of changes. Really above and beyond, Jim, hats off.

Ben E Lou

12-29-2009, 09:39 AM

For those asking about what to do about multiple leagues, Flasch posted a thread, and I've answered, I think, all of the questions being asked.

6.3 MP Conversion thread - Front Office Football Central (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=76118)

Ben E Lou

12-29-2009, 09:43 AM

Stats are falling into line nicely so far. The real test of that starts shortly, when I fully take control of a team against the AI. I expect to win, but I'm hoping I can no longer throw 50 TD passes virtually every season.

So far, it appears that the RB-->WR conversion thing that some have been concerned about basically works itself out in this version because RBs seem to be much more important.

revrew

12-29-2009, 09:53 AM

A few observations after 12 seasons of QuikSimminghttp://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/fofc/trademark.gif

YAC per catch is wayyyyy up. Pulled a full season pre-patch and got 2.31. Post-patch? 3.51.
Short pass attempts are wayyyy up.
Ypa on short passing either didn't change at all or changed so little that it's insignificant.
Completion percentage on short passes is significantly lower (dropped from around 82% to around 73%). So YAC must be what's causing ypa to stay fairly static. I like that.
Rex has bumped up his short passing playcalls quite a bit. Loading up my WOOF team in 6.2 on one machine and 6.3 on the other, I get a 49-34-17 split on 1st and 10 in 6.3 as opposed to 49-21-30 in 6.2. Distances are 27.3-21-51.7 and 39.4-25.8-16.8-12.3-5.7 in 6.3 versus 31.0-23.7-45.3 and 30-28.7-20.3-14.5-6.5 in 6.2. If Rexy is our initial guide to game planning, it's clear that he's saying to throw shorter passes.

I for one would REALLY welcome this kind of change. For dozens of seasons in MP, I have tried to build a west coast offense with YAC receivers and high completion percentages. Move the ball down the field with efficiency. And while I've been successful enough to finish with an average record of about 10-6, my squads have nonetheless consistently taken second-seat to the Air Coryell big-bombing, 50/60 TD teams. If all this is accurate, my gameplans might actually work BETTER, rather than worse, a welcome change.

Raiders Army

12-29-2009, 09:56 AM

Thanks Jim!

Eaglesfan27

12-29-2009, 10:16 AM

Great news. Looking forward to playing some SP again and messing around with gameplans this week.

A-Husker-4-Life

12-29-2009, 10:24 AM

Thanks Jim, this patch is almost like getting a new game for free..

I will always continue to support your games no matter what because of your dedication.

Ben E Lou

12-29-2009, 11:39 AM

OK. I've cleared all of the "I can't figure out how to install the patch" posts and help. Use this thread to discuss the patch, the changes, the impressions, thank Jim, etc.

Jughead Spock

12-29-2009, 11:47 AM

I'm thrilled about the potential implications. I've stubbornly built more into a good defense/running game team over the years, now it looks like it may actually have some effect.

miked

12-29-2009, 12:28 PM

cuervo72

12-29-2009, 01:52 PM

So far, it appears that the RB-->WR conversion thing that some have been concerned about basically works itself out in this version because RBs seem to be much more important.

ORLY?

zbuckley

12-29-2009, 02:01 PM

Has anyone tried to build a "dominate defense" team. Just curious if you could make a 2000 Ravens type team with the new patch

Dutch

12-29-2009, 02:11 PM

ORLY?

Lucky!

Ben E Lou

12-29-2009, 02:25 PM

ORLY?That's my initial impression, at least.

miked

12-29-2009, 02:40 PM

Has anyone tried to build a "dominate defense" team. Just curious if you could make a 2000 Ravens type team with the new patch

Well, to be honest, you can do this in SP if you want with the current/past version(s). It's MP where you have guys like Ben, Quik, etc that make gameplans to make the most of the engine. In SP, the AI doesn't focus on getting the stud QB/WR/WR combo to dominate for the next decade, they focus on perceived holes (even if it's an OG with the 3rd pick).

MizzouRah

12-29-2009, 02:57 PM

Nice!!!

Thank you Jim!

Mike Lowe

12-29-2009, 03:04 PM

Jim, all you are missing are some hand-warmers or a new mini-game and you could have charged us for a brand new game like some other companies we hold so dear to our hearts.

Dutch

12-29-2009, 03:20 PM

I simmed two seasons with my short pass GP just to make sure it still works.

10th year QB (92/92)
4th year RB (47/47)
5th year FL (72/72)
10th year SE (37/37)
7th year TE (76/76)

The FL average 1800 yards per season, the TE average 800 yards, and the RB mustered 1,000+ yards both season.

First run: 12-4 and a championship
Second run: 14-2 and a championship

Testing complete.

(EDIT: I will say this, that stud QB didn't get 100 QB Rating either season...I found that noteworthy.)

Flasch186

12-29-2009, 04:33 PM

...thoughts on what this does to leagues with house rules in order to effect cap space etc. Ie, only reneg players in final years, only offering X amount of year deals to FA's, etc.?

Surtt

12-29-2009, 05:02 PM

Add normal substitution for nickel and dime packages on defense.

I don't see any backup slots on the nickel and dime screen.
(or did I screw up my update?)

If your nickel back is also your backup CB.
Who gets substituted in?

sidthelid

12-29-2009, 05:36 PM

What is the TV station ia aid of in the preview screen, :)

I am also seing very little goaline on 1st and 10 which i think changes the game so much for the better

Sef0r

12-29-2009, 05:58 PM

Why take a knee then try to pass on the next play.

Chicago: Pro formation, strength is right. The defense is in a 43 with nickel personnel and 2-deep bump-and-run coverage, keying aggressively on the pass. Russell and Fisher are blitzing.
1-10-CHI25 (2Q: 00:36) Calvin Dick dropped to one knee for -1 yards.

Chicago: Weak formation with two tight ends, strength is left. The defense is in a 43 with nickel personnel and 2-deep bump-and-run coverage, keying aggressively on the pass. Russell is blitzing.
2-11-CHI24 (2Q: 00:09) Calvin Dick pass was blocked at the line, intended for TE Jerald Grusendorf. OLB Earnest Russell blocked the pass. The quarterback threw away from the double coverage.

Ben E Lou

12-29-2009, 07:29 PM

C4, that's been there a long time. Not new to 6.3 by a long stretch.

All, just thought of another sniff test. I'm going to re-run the most recent FOWL season in 6.3 a few times with the same game plans and whatnot to see how league-wide stats might have changed.

Bako

12-29-2009, 07:32 PM

All, just thought of another sniff test. I'm going to re-run the most recent FOWL season in 6.3 a few times with the same game plans and whatnot to see how league-wide stats might have changed.

I am very interested to see the results of this Ben. Go Cowboys!!!

FBPro

12-29-2009, 07:47 PM

How do I get the custom logos to work again?

Ben E Lou

12-29-2009, 07:58 PM

Heh. The most obvious shift is that Dallas, a team built on a running game and defense, improved from 10-6 to averaging 13.5 wins. Nice. League-wide QB rating drops from 81.7 to 76.2

SlyBelle1

12-29-2009, 11:58 PM

SlyBelle1

12-30-2009, 12:12 AM

I have attached a sample screenshot of another season. All the seasons I have simmed so far are similar, with a ton of RBs catching balls. RBs circled in Blue.

As you'll see, roughly 14 of the 36 listed receivers are RBs. Seems very excessive to me.

TheMeat

12-30-2009, 12:57 AM

Young Drachma

12-30-2009, 01:29 AM

Thanks for the update, Jim.

Ben E Lou

12-30-2009, 02:38 AM

Is anybody else seeing RB's catching too many balls? In my last season, it seemed like half of the top 20 receivers were running backs. Adrian Peterson was the leading receiver with over a 100 catches. Looking at this year's real season, the highest RB ranked (Tim Hightower) is ranked 36th.

I play using the Steelers and my leading receiver was my RB, Mendenhall.
I'm pretty sure this is a function of the shorter-passing Rex game plans. I'm seeing similar results for AI in SP, but when I re-ran the FOWL season, for example, it was nothing like that. The top RB had 74 catches, next 68, third 63. 18 of the top 20 guys in catches were WRs, then the one RB and one TE filled out the top 20. If it's a big deal to you in SP, I'd report it to support AT solecismic DOT com.

Sef0r

12-30-2009, 05:00 AM

I'm pretty sure this is a function of the shorter-passing Rex game plans. I'm seeing similar results for AI in SP, but when I re-ran the FOWL season, for example, it was nothing like that. The top RB had 74 catches, next 68, third 63. 18 of the top 20 guys in catches were WRs, then the one RB and one TE filled out the top 20. If it's a big deal to you in SP, I'd report it to support AT solecismic DOT com.

Ben, didn't know about the kneel then try and pass play...my bad.

Now, any chance that we (the FOWL GMs) can see the results of the sims you ran? I would like to know what adjustments, if any, I will need to make to the gameplan I used in the previous season.

Ben E Lou

12-30-2009, 05:10 AM

MIJB#19

12-30-2009, 05:34 AM

C4, that's been there a long time. Not new to 6.3 by a long stretch.Sure, but the list of fixes actually has the end of first half play-calling logic on it.

MIJB#19

12-30-2009, 05:37 AM

Is anybody else seeing RB's catching too many balls? In my last season, it seemed like half of the top 20 receivers were running backs. Adrian Peterson was the leading receiver with over a 100 catches. Looking at this year's real season, the highest RB ranked (Tim Hightower) is ranked 36th.

I play using the Steelers and my leading receiver was my RB, Mendenhall.That's really not new to 6.3. In 6.2, if there are a lot of good receiving RBs, you'll notice a lot of RBs in the 50-75 catch area.

As Ben pointed out, if the AI is calling more shorter passing in 6.3, you should expect the number of RBs in the 50-75 catches area to improve.

Ben E Lou

12-30-2009, 05:55 AM

Sure, but the list of fixes actually has the end of first half play-calling logic on it.
Right, but given the specific wording...

Another attempt to improve the field-goal and play-calling logic at the end of the first half, particularly when your team has the lead.

...I don't have any reason to believe this is going after the oft-mentioned (by Jim) fact that each play is an individual event. That fix doesn't seem like it would be anything that big to change the fundamental way it works of examining each play situation individually. I'm guessing that the fix is mainly for this:

<style></style>END OF FIRST HALF: RUNNING WITH LEAD
If a team has a lead and has the ball with less than 2 minutes to play in the first half in the opponent's red zone, they go to a run-only offense, even in situations where they should clearly be trying to throw it into the end zone at least once. I don't think I've ever, not one single time, seen a team with the lead throw a pass in the red zone with less than 2 minutes to play in the first half.

A few examples:

Lowcountry: I formation, strength is right. The defense is in a 43 with nickel personnel and 3-deep zone coverage, expecting the run.
2-10-CHV37 (2Q: 00:39) Lionel Johnstone pass completed to WR Shawn VanCleave for 23 yards. Tackled by OLB Leslie Seau. VanCleave gained 17 yards after the catch. Lowcountry called a time out. Lowcountry: Weak formation with three wide receivers, strength is left. The defense is in a 43 with dime personnel and 2-deep bump-and-run coverage, keying aggressively on the pass.
1-10-CHV14 (2Q: 00:29) Brad Patterson ran outside the right tackle for 4 yards. Tackled by S Thomas Hastings. Lowcountry called a time out. Lowcountry: Single-Back formation with two tight ends, strength is left. The defense is in a 43 with dime personnel and 2-deep bump-and-run coverage, keying aggressively on the pass.
2-6-CHV10 (2Q: 00:22) Wade Irwin ran inside the right tackle for 3 yards. Tackled by OLB Rod Evans. Lowcountry called a time out. 3-3-CHV07 (2Q: 00:13) Scottie Wellstone attempted a 24 yard field goal and succeeded. Lowcountry 17, Charlottesville 10 (2Q: 00:07) Scottie Wellstone kicked off 69 yards from the LWC30. Carl Christian returned the ball 23 yards to the CHV24. Tackled by Don Bryant.

Lowcountry: Weak formation with three wide receivers, strength is right. The defense is in a 43 with goal-line personnel and 2-deep bump-and-run coverage, expecting the run.
2-4-RAL12 (2Q: 01:33) Brad Patterson ran inside the right guard for -3 yards. Tackled by DT Burt Weir. Lowcountry: Weak formation with three wide receivers, strength is right. The defense is in a 43 with nickel personnel and 2-deep man-to-man coverage, keying aggressively on the pass.
3-7-RAL15 (2Q: 00:50) Wade Irwin ran inside the right guard for 1 yard. Tackled by DT Melvin Franz, assisted by S Winfred Kerr. (2Q: 00:50) Lowcountry called a time out. 4-6-RAL14 (2Q: 00:42) Scottie Wellstone attempted a 31 yard field goal and succeeded. Lowcountry 17, Raleigh 7

(At least it works this time...)
Lowcountry: Pro formation with two tight ends, strength is left. The defense is in a 43 with nickel personnel and 2-deep bump-and-run coverage, expecting the run.
1-10-HRS28 (2Q: 01:26) Lionel Johnstone pass completed to WR Kelvin Moe for 16 yards. Tackled by CB C.J. Aleinkoff. The receiver ran his route right over the middle of the field. Moe gained 4 yards after the catch. Lowcountry: Pro formation with two tight ends, strength is right. The defense is in a 43 and 2-deep man-to-man coverage, expecting the run.
1-10-HRS12 (2Q: 00:43) Wade Irwin ran inside the left tackle for 3 yards. Tackled by OLB Darryl Rhodes. PENALTY: Hampton Roads was called for Unsportsmanlike Conduct. Lowcountry: Weak formation, strength is left. The defense is in a 43 and 2-deep bump-and-run coverage, expecting the run. Francis is blitzing.
1-5-HRS05 (2Q: 00:37) Brad Patterson ran around right end for 1 yard. Tackled by CB C.J. Aleinkoff, assisted by DE Jerome Davidson. The ball was fumbled and recovered by LWC Earnest Kapp to the HRS04. (2Q: 00:37) Lowcountry called a time out. Lowcountry: Weak formation with two tight ends, strength is left. The defense is in a 43 and 2-deep bump-and-run coverage, expecting the run.
2-4-HRS04 (2Q: 00:25) Wade Irwin ran around left end for 4 yards and a TOUCHDOWN! Key block delivered by Earnest Kapp. Kapp ran over Dana McDonald to set up the play. Lowcountry 23, Hampton Roads 7 (2Q: 00:25) Extra point by Scottie Wellstone was good. Lowcountry 24, Hampton Roads 7

Tucker: Single-Back formation, strength is left. The defense is in a 43 with nickel personnel and 2-deep bump-and-run coverage, expecting the pass.
1-10-BTH12 (2Q: 00:47) Earnest Talley ran around the left tackle for 3 yards and was forced out of bounds. Tackled by DT Leo Harvey. Tucker: Pro formation, strength is left. The defense is in a 43 with goal-line personnel and 2-deep bump-and-run coverage, keying aggressively on the run.
2-7-BTH09 (2Q: 00:38) Jermaine Bachechi ran outside the right tackle for 2 yards. Tackled by OLB Johnnie Budd, assisted by S Perry Kemp. Tucker called a time out. Tucker: Single-Back formation with trips receivers, strength is left. The defense is in a 43 with dime personnel and 4-deep zone coverage, keying aggressively on the pass.
3-5-BTH07 (2Q: 00:30) Jermaine Bachechi ran inside the left guard for 4 yards. Tackled by S Pat Fontenot. Tucker called a time out. 4-1-BTH03 (2Q: 00:19) Marc Salter attempted a 20 yard field goal and succeeded. Tucker 17, Bethlehem 7

Hammer

12-30-2009, 06:28 AM

I didn't track anything besides Dallas (because of their team makeup) and league-wide QB rating. I've closed the last sim I ran, too.

Speculation based on my SP play so far: cohesion may be more important. I'll be watching that.

I ran a test this morning funnily enough, after our chat over at the vNFL. Only brief, and hardly scientific, but just for my own interest.

I ran the same season 5 times with a standard set of rosters, and a standard set-up. No injuries etc. I then swopped Peyton Manning to the Patriots and Tom Brady to the Colts.

Colts passing cohesion was 1st, Patriots was 5th. After the trade the Colts went to 15th, and the Patriots to 23rd.

No obvious differences. Manning took the Pats to 16-0 one year, 8.80 Avg A and a 119.4 rating, only to be beaten by Brady and the Colts in the playoffs. Colts went on to win the title :)

Anyhow, I saw no obvious difference in performance in terms of win-loss, QB rating or anything for that matter, from the control. I will do a more in depth scientific study when I get time. Initial impression though is that cohesion still means very little. Its not scratching the paint work of the overall equation.

SlyBelle1

12-30-2009, 07:02 AM

I'm pretty sure this is a function of the shorter-passing Rex game plans. I'm seeing similar results for AI in SP, but when I re-ran the FOWL season, for example, it was nothing like that. The top RB had 74 catches, next 68, third 63. 18 of the top 20 guys in catches were WRs, then the one RB and one TE filled out the top 20. If it's a big deal to you in SP, I'd report it to support AT solecismic DOT com.

Thanks for the info. I'll go ahead and report it at the support site, but guessing not much will be done. I know I might be in the minority, but this seems way to excessive for my liking. I don't mind a shorter passing game, but at the same time I don't think it should make a ton of RBs better then actual WRs. For me personally, kind of ruins the experience.

Thanks.

Ben E Lou

12-30-2009, 07:32 AM

I don't think it should make a ton of RBs better then actual WRsLooking at those stats you posted, most of them aren't better. If anything, I suspect many of them are actually hurting their team by getting so many catches.

Ben E Lou

12-30-2009, 07:44 AM

Dola...but I do think I get what you're trying to say.

SlyBelle1

12-30-2009, 07:53 AM

Dola...but I do think I get what you're trying to say.

Thanks. Your right they might not be a better actual receiver, but their stats are making them seem that way:)

Again, thanks for your thoughts.

Ben E Lou

12-30-2009, 08:37 AM

Initial impression though is that cohesion still means very little. Its not scratching the paint work of the overall equation.Gotcha....formations maybe?

MIJB#19

12-30-2009, 09:19 AM

Right, but given the specific wording...

...I don't have any reason to believe this is going after the oft-mentioned (by Jim) fact that each play is an individual event. That fix doesn't seem like it would be anything that big to change the fundamental way it works of examining each play situation individually. I'm guessing that the fix is mainly for this:I'm not sure I agree here. There were three issues with the end of first half logic:
* teams running out the clock when they are in position to score
* related to that, teams are calling time outs where the other team should be calling the time out
* the knee drop, play on sequences

Maybe I'm missing something, but those three all seem related to me.

Ben E Lou

12-30-2009, 09:23 AM

hmmm...I never saw #1 and #2 on your list. Sometimes teams would get too close to the edge and therefore would try to run another play rather than kick the FG, but that's not really what it sounds like you're saying in #1. #3 really makes complete sense if each play is an individual decision.

johnnyshaka

12-30-2009, 10:44 AM

Heh. The most obvious shift is that Dallas, a team built on a running game and defense, improved from 10-6 to averaging 13.5 wins. Nice. League-wide QB rating drops from 81.7 to 76.2

Damn! How good would my (early FOWL) JAX teams have been with 6.3? :rant:

johnnyshaka

12-30-2009, 10:57 AM

Thanks for the info. I'll go ahead and report it at the support site, but guessing not much will be done. I know I might be in the minority, but this seems way to excessive for my liking. I don't mind a shorter passing game, but at the same time I don't think it should make a ton of RBs better then actual WRs. For me personally, kind of ruins the experience.

Thanks.

Without doing much investigation...could it be that in your tests (assuming injuries are off) that the RBs don't leave the field...ever? I mean, it's a rarity in the NFL that one RB plays every snap anymore so maybe we should be looking at the total number of tosses to a back in the NFL (or total per team) before we get too concerned about sniff test results.

SlyBelle1

12-30-2009, 11:14 AM

Without doing much investigation...could it be that in your tests (assuming injuries are off) that the RBs don't leave the field...ever? I mean, it's a rarity in the NFL that one RB plays every snap anymore so maybe we should be looking at the total number of tosses to a back in the NFL (or total per team) before we get too concerned about sniff test results.

To the best of my knowledge my injuries are turned on. I wish this was just a one time thing, but if you sim a year, you'll see it happens everytime.

SlyBelle1

12-30-2009, 11:21 AM

Just for grins, I simmed a year with max injuries turned on and no difference. RBs still are too excessive so I don't think it has anything to do with injury setting.

SlyBelle1

12-30-2009, 11:23 AM

What I'm now wondering is the long term effects of this RB issue. Won't it in theory take away opportunities from the WRs too much? How will WR skills increase? Will RBs make the hall of fame because of these numbers? Will less WRs make the hall of fame because not enough opportunities? Will RBs be the career leaders in receiving? Will RBs own receiving records? etc.

Dutch

12-30-2009, 11:27 AM

Thanks. Your right they might not be a better actual receiver, but their stats are making them seem that way:)

Again, thanks for your thoughts.

I noticed 8 of the top 20 reception leaders as RB's. Not sure what that used to be like, but I don't recall it being that high. And a RB led the league with 127 receptions. So the short passing game (which should lead to more RB receptions) is becoming more popular with the AI teams.

I haven't noticed any other stats that seem quite so dramatically altered from 6.2 to 6.3. Particularly, I haven't seen the top WR #'s drop as a result...

(FWIW: In the NFL, there have only been perhaps 6 RB's in the last 5 years combined that have had a Top-20 effort in receptions.)

Dutch

12-30-2009, 11:43 AM

SlyBelle1

12-30-2009, 11:59 AM

In my SP league, from 2007-2011, the most passes ever attempted by the league was 17,702. In 2012 (6.3) the record was smashed with 18,737.

6.2 year (17,702)
SHORT PASSES - 7,696 (43%)
MEDIUM PASSES - 6,828 (39%)
LONG PASSES - 3,138 (18%)

6.3 year (18,737)
SHORT PASSES - 10,889 (58%) +15%
MEDIUM PASSES - 5,727 (31%) -8%
LONG PASSES - 2,092 (11%) -7%

The big shift made obvious with color and explains the significant RB reception increase.

Seems like a reasonable explaination as to why this might be happening. I simmed through 2021 just to see what career stats would look like and as expected, RBs are listed very much. The only thing that is probably keeping them from completely dominating the career stats is the fact a RB career is usually less than a WR so gives the WR some time to catch up.

I know I sound like a broken record, but this is not really a good thing and will make it hard for me to continue playing this version. I'm sure others will be fine with it which is Ok. Such a shame since the other stats seem pretty good besides receiving.

Keeping fingers crossed for a fix:)

Flasch186

12-30-2009, 12:05 PM

thoughts on how this RB increase in production is going to effect MP leagues that are on 6.3?

A-Husker-4-Life

12-30-2009, 12:12 PM

Seems like a reasonable explaination as to why this might be happening. I simmed through 2021 just to see what career stats would look like and as expected, RBs are listed very much. The only thing that is probably keeping them from completely dominating the career stats is the fact a RB career is usually less than a WR so gives the WR some time to catch up.

I know I sound like a broken record, but this is not really a good thing and will make it hard for me to continue playing this version. I'm sure others will be fine with it which is Ok. Such a shame since the other stats seem pretty good besides receiving.

Keeping fingers crossed for a fix:)

Have you tried keeping your runner in to block more in pass situations?

Front Office Midget

12-30-2009, 12:15 PM

Yeah, it makes sense that the change has led to more RB catches, however, it does not properly reflect reality. It seems to me that that really hurts this update...

SlyBelle1

12-30-2009, 12:20 PM

Further information on RB issue. I have simmed through 2025 to check out impact to Hall of Fame. Some observations.

1) So far, no WRs elected to the hof - makes sense to me since the RBs are taking too many catches/TDs away from them.

2) So far (5) RBs have been elected to the HOF. All of them appear to be "Thurman Thomas" like. Reasonable rushing yards 11-12k range and big receiving stats.

3) None of the RBs elected appear to the type where they dominated simply running the ball versus combined with their receiving stats.

So to me the RB issue just gets compounded over time...

Again, I don't mind the engine being tweaked to have more shorter passing involved, but that does not need to equate to the RB getting huge receiving numbers. At this point, not realistic and takes away too much from the WRs.

johnnyshaka

12-30-2009, 12:23 PM

thoughts on how this RB increase in production is going to effect MP leagues that are on 6.3?

Remember...those increases are with the AI running the show...will that translate to MP directly?

Flasch186

12-30-2009, 12:24 PM

I dont know but if people know about it up front I wold guess you simply go from the QB/WR/WR equation to a QB/RB/? Equation....

SlyBelle1

12-30-2009, 12:26 PM

Have you tried keeping your runner in to block more in pass situations?

Even if that would work, it would only be for my team. You can't make the AI controlled teams do this.

Ben E Lou

12-30-2009, 12:28 PM

It doesn't appear to be a huge production increase, Flasch. It's a change in Rex game plans. If you ramp up short passing in 6.2, you'll see the exact same thing. RBs and FBs. Point being, it's significant for SP, but probably barely a blip on the radar for MP. It's not like a bunch of these guys are getting 8ypt. More savvy owners will shy away from RBs who suck up targets and don't do anything with 'em. Nitwits will ooh and ahh over their 90-catch, 550-yard, 4.8 ypt RB. *shurg*

gstelmack

12-30-2009, 12:31 PM

SlyBelle1

12-30-2009, 12:32 PM

How often is Rex throwing screens? One issue here is that short passes should still be able to go to WRs a bunch (see Welker, Wes), but FOF has a tendency to throw a lot of screens and hit FBs out of the backfield.

Perhaps RB RR is having too big of an effect?

That is what I was thinking too....I don't mind the short passing game, but more passes should go the WRs instead of the RBs.

Sef0r

12-30-2009, 12:33 PM

I don't know that this will actually have an affect in the MP environment.

For RBs the Avg/C and catch percentage appears the same. I think it has more to do with REX favouring the shorter passing game and giving the screens + 0-4 yards passing about 50% of those plays.

WRs do seem to get more 3rd down targets then RBs compared to normal passing situations.

Some people don't like using the screens + 0-4 yards much and will probably put 90+ % of short passing to the 5-8 yards passes. I have tried this and my RB is no where near the top.

Ben E Lou

12-30-2009, 12:33 PM

How often is Rex throwing screens? One issue here is that short passes should still be able to go to WRs a bunch (see Welker, Wes), but FOF has a tendency to throw a lot of screens and hit FBs out of the backfield.

Perhaps RB RR is having too big of an effect?I don't think it's RR. It's the significant shift in game plans that Dutch mentioned, and I've seen as well. Lemme do a quick screen shot demonstration...

Sef0r

12-30-2009, 12:38 PM

That is what I was thinking too....I don't mind the short passing game, but more passes should go the WRs instead of the RBs.

Isn't the primary target in the shorter passing formations the RB?

Okay but I do get your point, primary target or not WRs also catch quick slants.

Ben E Lou

12-30-2009, 12:39 PM

EDIT FOR SEFOR EDIT:

Yes, in FOF 6.3, 6.2, 6.1, 6.0, and back in FOF2K4, throwing shorter gets the RB more targets no matter what his RR is.

Ben E Lou

12-30-2009, 12:44 PM

Ok. Here's what Rexy is saying for my IHOF MP team's next game.

6.2
http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/fofc/62basic.png
6.3
http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/fofc/63basic.png

6.2
http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/fofc/62misc.png

6.3
http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/fofc/63misc.png

Hammer

12-30-2009, 12:45 PM

Gotcha....formations maybe?

Sorry, not sure I understand. Could you explain further?

Sef0r

12-30-2009, 12:48 PM

Ben, thats a big difference there. The shorter passes gets favoured quite heavily.

Ben E Lou

12-30-2009, 12:55 PM

Ben, thats a big difference there. The shorter passes gets favoured quite heavily.Yup. And throwing that much shorter *will* get the RB more looks. It works that way in 6.2. It worked that way in 6.1. It worked that way in FOF2K4, even. RR is important, but for WR vs. TE vs. RB/FB targets, pass distance is probably equally (if not more) important. The easiest way to avoid the RB getting the ball is to throw it down the field more. The easiest way to get the ball to the RB is to throw it short. As I said earlier, it's pretty much a non-issue in MP. I *do* wonder if this might be making SP easier than it should be for the human. (You want *good* receiving RBs to get a lot of passes, but it appears that because of the game plans, even bad ones are.)

Ben E Lou

12-30-2009, 12:56 PM

Sorry, not sure I understand. Could you explain further?HEh. Sorry for the cryptic comment. I'm wondering if formations are more important now. Do Manning and Brady have a bunch of them?

SlyBelle1

12-30-2009, 01:20 PM

Yup. And throwing that much shorter *will* get the RB more looks. It works that way in 6.2. It worked that way in 6.1. It worked that way in FOF2K4, even. RR is important, but for WR vs. TE vs. RB/FB targets, pass distance is probably equally (if not more) important. The easiest way to avoid the RB getting the ball is to throw it down the field more. The easiest way to get the ball to the RB is to throw it short. As I said earlier, it's pretty much a non-issue in MP. I *do* wonder if this might be making SP easier than it should be for the human. (You want *good* receiving RBs to get a lot of passes, but it appears that because of the game plans, even bad ones are.)

Ben, although I could possibly make these adjustments for my own team and get better RB numbers, how would I do the same for all the CPU controlled teams? It seems the CPU teams would continue to still have this problem.

Thanks.

Ben E Lou

12-30-2009, 01:23 PM

Ben, although I could possibly make these adjustments for my own team and get better RB numbers, how would I do the same for all the CPU controlled teams? It seems the CPU teams would continue to still have this problem.

Thanks.You can't. Hence this comment:

I *do* wonder if this might be making SP easier than it should be for the human. (You want *good* receiving RBs to get a lot of passes, but it appears that because of the game plans, even bad ones are.)

SlyBelle1

12-30-2009, 01:25 PM

Gotcha...I missed that part.

Izulde

12-30-2009, 02:03 PM

I'm glad I saw that bit about the RBs going catch-happy for SP in 6.3

Means I won't be downloading the patch, because it'd kill immersion for me, too.

Yoda

12-30-2009, 02:09 PM

Sef0r

12-30-2009, 02:09 PM

It would be great to get a feature that allowed us to change team's tendencies.

Like having some teams pass/run ratio favoured more to the pass - 60/40 and vice versa.

dubb93

12-30-2009, 02:13 PM

Ben E Lou

12-30-2009, 02:25 PM

I'm noticing some cap screwiness that I've never noticed before. I'm in week 16 with a cap strapped team (60k under the cap) and I have a bunch of injuries. As I go about filling my roster(I wasn't at 53 players) by signing free agents the players salary is being added to my room under the cap. For instance I sign a S and go from 60K under the cap to 410K under the cap. Also if I release a player it actually subtracts from my room under the cap rather than adds to it.Two things that have been in place since well before this patch sound like they're going on here.

1. It's late in the season, so salaries are pro-rated.
2. Once you hit 53 under contract, you get a free pass on all but the top 53 contracts.

Because of these two factors combined, there's a point where signing a guy late in the season actually opens up additional cap space.

dubb93

12-30-2009, 02:35 PM

Two things that have been in place since well before this patch sound like they're going on here.

1. It's late in the season, so salaries are pro-rated.
2. Once you hit 53 under contract, you get a free pass on all but the top 53 contracts.

Because of these two factors combined, there's a point where signing a guy late in the season actually opens up additional cap space.

I knew about the prorating of contracts which is why I was trying to sign a guy with just 60k in cap space to begin with. The second part is news to me and is probably what is going on. I do have an awful lot of players on IR at this point.

Thanks for the quick reply Ben. And thanks for the free update Jim.

cubboyroy1826

12-30-2009, 02:50 PM

Since all of my play is in solo mode i probably should have waited a bit to upgrade. Hopefully this will be taken care of.

dubb93

12-30-2009, 03:09 PM

Since all of my play is in solo mode i probably should have waited a bit to upgrade. Hopefully this will be taken care of.

Honestly I think it is worth the upgrade anyway right now. In my playoff game I just watched at the end of the first half my team took it down and punched it in the endzone with a pass and the other team got the ball. The tried to move it down field but threw an INT at my 32. My team took the ball back down the field(with intermediate passes) and attempted a 51 yard field goal before the end of the half.

All of that took place in the last two minutes of the first half. In 6.2 my team would have ran the ball on the first drive and attempted a FG at the very of the half. This alone is a huge realism boost.

Front Office Midget

12-30-2009, 04:08 PM

Yup. And throwing that much shorter *will* get the RB more looks. It works that way in 6.2. It worked that way in 6.1. It worked that way in FOF2K4, even. RR is important, but for WR vs. TE vs. RB/FB targets, pass distance is probably equally (if not more) important. The easiest way to avoid the RB getting the ball is to throw it down the field more. The easiest way to get the ball to the RB is to throw it short. As I said earlier, it's pretty much a non-issue in MP. I *do* wonder if this might be making SP easier than it should be for the human. (You want *good* receiving RBs to get a lot of passes, but it appears that because of the game plans, even bad ones are.)

I understand that the general sentiment from MP-only players will be, "This is not a problem, humans gameplan to make sure their RBs won't get too many targets."

However, some of us play SP.

I play in 2 leagues. One is an MP-only league, and the other is me and 3 friends playing against 29 AI. The latter league is actually more fun and important to me, and the AI teams and players have taken on a real personality to me. Seeing ridiculous RB reception stats would be a gamekiller for me.

Ben E Lou

12-30-2009, 05:28 PM

I understand that the general sentiment from MP-only players will be, "This is not a problem, humans gameplan to make sure their RBs won't get too many targets."

However, some of us play SP.

I play in 2 leagues. One is an MP-only league, and the other is me and 3 friends playing against 29 AI. The latter league is actually more fun and important to me, and the AI teams and players have taken on a real personality to me. Seeing ridiculous RB reception stats would be a gamekiller for me.Right, but I was still basically replying to Flasch about MP with 32(ish) humans. SP is an entirely different animal with this sort of thing.

Ben E Lou

12-30-2009, 07:38 PM

Fairly certain that they're not all running the same game plan. It's talent based, but all game plans have swapped some long passes out for short passes from what would have been called in 6.2.

Front Office Midget

12-30-2009, 11:53 PM

Right, but I was still basically replying to Flasch about MP with 32(ish) humans. SP is an entirely different animal with this sort of thing.

Ah ok.

As it is, I'm not installing this update because of the inflated RB receptions. Sooo hopefully Jim will take a look at this.

PS Thanks for the update!

gstelmack

12-31-2009, 07:15 AM

Ben E Lou

12-31-2009, 07:26 AM

SlyBelle1

12-31-2009, 07:29 AM

SlyBelle1

12-31-2009, 07:30 AM

Well, it's already been reported to Solecismic in more detail than that prior to it showing up at FOFC, actually. (Email sent 12/29 at 10am.) I just slapped something in the thread so that people wouldn't try to post it there again. ;)

I also sent an email and received a response that they were aware of the issue and looking into it. Also, said it would be corrected at some point, but no time frame identified.

SlyBelle1

12-31-2009, 07:33 AM

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see anywhere within the gameplan screens that you can say "zero out the screens". Where is that located? I can only see short passes mentioned.

Nevermind, found it:)

SlyBelle1

12-31-2009, 07:49 AM

Ben, in the bug thread you say:

"AI game plans are throwing significantly shorter and therefore causing too many high-catch RBs."

I would clarify to say that I don't think throwing shorter more is a bug, but rather that throwing short targets RBs so much more often than WRs. One key that someone should check is how much screen percentage affects this; if you zero out screens in your gameplan, how much do the RBs catch it now? Rex the gameplan to get an AI-centric one, run a few test seasons, then zero out screens and run again and see what happens to the RB numbers. Is it just throwing more screens, or do the RBs catch too many of the short patterns?

Although not very fancy and just a very crude test, here are some results of simming a season with various options selected (all simmed using the steelers):

1) Screen Pass = 0% - RBs targeted 99 times and caught 72 passes
2) Screen Pass = 0% and Short Pass 1-4 Yards = 0% - RBs targeted 81 times and caught 59 passes
3) All short pass = 0% (including screens) - RBs targeted 136 times and caught 106 passes
4) Left Screen Pass at Recommended (27%) but had 100% turned on for RB staying in to Block - RBs targeted 95 times and caught 72 passes
5) Screen Pass = 0% and had 100% turned on for RB to stay in and block - RBs targeted 82 times and caught 76 passes

Again, nothing fancy. To me, doesn't seem like any of these settings have too drastically an impact on changing how RBs are used. Sure, there are some differences, but not as extreme as I would have thought.

At this point, I think I will leave it in the hands of Jim to figure out:)

Julio Riddols

12-31-2009, 08:26 AM

Its too bad we cant have the pass game seperated into 3 categories - "RB centric passes" (screen and 0-4 yard passes), "short/medium" (5-15 yards), "long" (beyond 15 yards.)"

It would also be nice to have the ability to split inside and outside runs.. situationally, it would only make our general offensive settings screens require a bit more filling out with the 2 extra columns per down, but it would allow a lot more specific gameplanning based on personnel.

Celeval

12-31-2009, 08:29 AM

I don't think the staying in to block affects targets at all - or very slightly - from what I understand, that setting only comes into play if the RB/FB/TE is not the primary receiver to begin with.

Ben E Lou

12-31-2009, 08:35 AM

It's a very small effect usually. I *think* if your QB has a high "Timing" rating, it can be a bit more, but still not huge.

MalcPow

12-31-2009, 08:56 AM

Thanks, Jim. Great work.

gstelmack

12-31-2009, 09:33 AM

Again, nothing fancy. To me, doesn't seem like any of these settings have too drastically an impact on changing how RBs are used. Sure, there are some differences, but not as extreme as I would have thought.

Good to know, it means screens aren't the issue.

Ben E Lou

12-31-2009, 09:38 AM

In the comparisons of game plans from the 6.2 box to the 6.3 box of the same team/league/week, in every case screen passes were slightly lower in 6.3. (30.7% vs. 27% in the screen earlier in this thread...nothing major). The big shift is from long to short. The 46-22-32 (6.2) to 46-36-18 (6.3) shift is it.

And to be clear, if you put these game plans into FOF6.2, I'm fairly sure you'd get very similar results in terms of RB targets.

Dutch

12-31-2009, 10:04 AM

I am wondering if the increased number of passes is due to the decrease in the number of completions.

Is there a cooresponding increase in the total number of plays called?

No, the total number of plays is the (roughly) the same, the rushing totals are down by a 1,000 rushes per season (league-wide) to make up the difference in additional passing attempts.

Chubby

12-31-2009, 11:07 AM

I thnk Jim nerfed the Offensive Adjustment screen go around...

Nogram

12-31-2009, 11:14 AM

I think I am not upgrading to 6.3....too much to sort out as to the changes, and I think there are a few tweaks needed.

In my test (on my wife's computer) I had a play go for 20 yards that was a 10 yard pass and 6 yards after the catch....keep in mind I call all my own plays.

Nogram

mmarra82

12-31-2009, 12:22 PM

Chubby

12-31-2009, 01:53 PM

/sigh

Cinci, in year 2 of my new SP career, lets 2 WRs (51/67 4 yr exp and 44/66 2 yr exp) become UFA after not signing them as RFAs... They had the cap room to sign both of them as well...

Rizon

12-31-2009, 03:01 PM

/sigh

Cinci, in year 2 of my new SP career, lets 2 WRs (51/67 4 yr exp and 44/66 2 yr exp) become UFA after not signing them as RFAs... They had the cap room to sign both of them as well...

Maybe one of them fell out of a truck?

Rizon

12-31-2009, 03:01 PM

Maybe one of them fell out of a truck?

Ooooo ... too soon, man, too soon ... :banghead:

Hammer

12-31-2009, 03:36 PM

Any thought that the RB's are being targeted intentionally by Jim to try and quiet down the QB-WR combo?

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in MP leagues where owners will keep RB's in to block at a high percentage.

It won't work. Low RR backs are the way forward, and always have been in my opinion - if you can't get a RB with great getting downfield.

johnnyshaka

12-31-2009, 03:46 PM

It won't work. Low RR backs are the way forward, and always have been in my opinion - if you can't get a RB with great getting downfield.

That sounds like a great test case, too...who gets the targets if your RBs have terrible RR ratings?

Hammer

12-31-2009, 05:35 PM

The WRs and TE Johhny, who do you think? No wonder you haven't won a Superbowl, Jeeez ;)

johnnyshaka

12-31-2009, 06:05 PM

The WRs and TE Johhny, who do you think? No wonder you haven't won a Superbowl, Jeeez ;)

What?? Eligible OTs have to get a few of those...C'MON!!!

I'd be curious to see who would garner more of those targets...WRs or TEs? Also, on a typical screen, where the RB is usually the ONLY target, will an obscenely low RR mean less completions when a screen is called?

Also, Hammer, that's a low blow...may your Vikings suck ASS from here on in!! :p

Chubby

12-31-2009, 07:09 PM

<TABLE cellSpacing=1 width="98%" bgColor=#ffcc00 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left bgColor=#fee9bc>4-1-BUF34 (4Q: 15:00) Earl Bromell attempted a 51 yard field goal and it was blocked by Sammy Woodson. BUF Robert Brock recovered the ball at the BUF34 and returned it 66 yards for a TOUCHDOWN! Buffalo 26, San Diego 6</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left bgColor=#d5dbe4>(4Q: 15:00) Extra point by Walt Clayton was good. Buffalo 27, San Diego 6</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

is this new? i'd never seen a blocked FG returned for a TD til now

Ben E Lou

12-31-2009, 07:12 PM

Not sure. I've never seen it, but on the flip side, it shouldn't be all that common, either.

Chubby

12-31-2009, 07:16 PM

Not sure. I've never seen it, but on the flip side, it shouldn't be all that common, either.
Agreed, can't say I've ever seen a return at all on blocked FGs before tho either...

Chubby

12-31-2009, 07:17 PM

in the boxscores for WR, did Targets and Catches get switched?

ozias

12-31-2009, 07:38 PM

Has anyone used Reshacker on this version, or is there something better to setup your bmp files, and get the windows set where you'd like them.

The email windows gets placed under the Almanac currently on my setup, and I lost the proper settings for Reshack last year in a HD crash.

Ben E Lou

12-31-2009, 07:42 PM

in the boxscores for WR, did Targets and Catches get switched?
I don't think so. Pretty sure it's always been catches, then targets.

nickelback

12-31-2009, 07:47 PM

The route running in RBs is interesting. Just ran a season with the Colts and Addai has RR of 40. Manning attempted 509 passes and targeted Addai only 48 times. Just something interesting I saw.

Ben E Lou

12-31-2009, 07:50 PM

What's the Addai TGT%? He's got low endurance in the test career I set up.

Chubby

12-31-2009, 07:52 PM

With all the utilities that move the screens, how do we not have a utility that auto interviews the top 40 in the draft class??

Chubby

12-31-2009, 08:17 PM

I'm surprised the trade screen check with rookies wasn't fixed.

Ben E Lou

12-31-2009, 08:19 PM

I'm surprised the trade screen check with rookies wasn't fixed.Did anyone report that? I'm pretty sure I didn't. I haven't found it significant enough to bother reporting it, but maybe I'm missing something.

Chubby

12-31-2009, 08:25 PM

Did anyone report that? I'm pretty sure I didn't. I haven't found it significant enough to bother reporting it, but maybe I'm missing something.
It's not a "huge" deal but I find it very useful when deciding who to go after if I know certain bars are masked with my rooks

Chubby

12-31-2009, 08:28 PM

4 seasons into my 6.3 SP career (petal to the metal with a full draft start on random rosters) and I have my 1st 16-0 reg season with:
Mario Poston: 328/466, 70.4%, 4671 yds, 47 TD, 8 Int, 129.0 rating
Mitch Skae: 322 att, 1332 yds, 9 TD
Mel Holmes: 85 catches, 1604 yds, 20 TD

WOOT :)

Chubby

12-31-2009, 09:38 PM

Dime issues aren't changed

nickelback

12-31-2009, 10:56 PM

His endurance is 76 in this test league and had a target % of 13.6.

nickelback

12-31-2009, 10:58 PM

Chubby

12-31-2009, 11:05 PM

Rex gameplan?
nope, modified version of an existing (6.2) gameplan I run

Hammer

01-01-2010, 04:06 AM

What?? Eligible OTs have to get a few of those...C'MON!!!

I'd be curious to see who would garner more of those targets...WRs or TEs? Also, on a typical screen, where the RB is usually the ONLY target, will an obscenely low RR mean less completions when a screen is called?

Also, Hammer, that's a low blow...may your Vikings suck ASS from here on in!! :p

If you look as my Vikings, you will see we have been playing with low RR backs since Richie Forbes left. He had the best getting downfield in the whole league, so he wasn't a liability. I believe it benefits the passing game to have low RR backs in general, particularly if you have quality TEs and WRs. Also worth mentioned to keep the FBs RR low (read non existent).

I'm not sure of what the distrubution is exactly, but the passes seem to get fairly evenly spread between positions when you take the RB out of the equation with low RR. I don't ever throw Screens so I can't answer that question.

I tend to look for backs who don't fumble and that have low RR. They also tend to have the 3 main rushing bars, and tend to be rated somewhere close to 40/40. They will never have the rushing presence of a guy like Forbes or Baxter, but they cost nothing typically, and suit my approach.

Ben E Lou

01-01-2010, 04:26 AM

Very low RR RBs and FBs, both in 6.2 and 6.3, will force the ball to the WRs--even if you throw a ton of screens.

gstelmack

01-01-2010, 09:00 AM

Very low RR RBs and FBs, both in 6.2 and 6.3, will force the ball to the WRs--even if you throw a ton of screens.

Sigh.

Ben E Lou

01-01-2010, 09:04 AM

To be clear, it appears that it's not as *effective* in 6.3 to force the ball to the same guy as it was in 6.2, but the targets are still high.

Ben E Lou

01-01-2010, 09:19 AM

...you'll have to better tailor your plan to your talent...

I'm still getting my hands around the patch, but I'm finding this to be true so far.

And on another note, the TCY import has changed dramatically. I might start using TCY files in SP now.

QuikSand

01-01-2010, 09:56 AM

I haven't seen this reported yet, and I don't have the wherewithal to do a lot of checking/research here right now, but I'll report seeing this:

I set up 6.3 on my laptop, and started a new career. Following one draft, I now have a CB on my team with a rating of 29/83 in bump and run coverage. Checking around the league, I see a fair number of apparently mediocre DB who have ratings like this... lots of green showing in the BnR coverage skill. My recolleciton was that this was either impossible or very unusual in the older versions of the game, though I might be mis-remembering.

A quick check of the young WR in the league reveals all rully-red ratings for big play receiving for every single guy - so that doesn't seem to be new, as that's what I recall there.

Anyone else sensing a shift in some (or maybe just one) of the so-called "fixed" ratings?

Celeval

01-01-2010, 12:11 PM

Anyone else sensing a shift in some (or maybe just one) of the so-called "fixed" ratings?

Have you tried opening the save game in both 6.2 and 6.3 to compare the players?

QuikSand

01-01-2010, 12:55 PM

I likely won't have any ability to do any side-by-side testing or evaluation this weekend, but if this remains a complete unknown by Monday I'll do some more digging.

Ben E Lou

01-01-2010, 01:42 PM

Ben E Lou

01-01-2010, 01:47 PM

WOOF MAX: 46 (http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/woof/ben/playercard.php?playerid=13101)

IHOF MAX: 58 (http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/ihof/ben/playercard.php?playerid=18950)

FOWL MAX: 34 (LCB Matthew Sheldon Player Details (http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/fowl/ben/playercard.php?playerid=28939))

DanGarion

01-02-2010, 11:30 PM

why AI not trade me player I want?

Ben E Lou

01-03-2010, 03:46 PM

Epi_862

01-04-2010, 04:01 AM

This is a first for me. Just checked, and five of the 32 guys sent to summer league came back with minor injuries. (I've got injuries at 200.) I would assume that major ones are now possible as well. Nice add/fix/whatever!

Yep

Just played SP and my stud DT in his second year got killed in summer league. Well, not killed, but to the IR he went - a 17 week knee injury. So yeah. Possible.

Ben E Lou

01-04-2010, 06:34 AM

WOOF just hit FA1:1. Reneg requests appear to be up significantly. More detail to follow in a bit...

Ben E Lou

01-04-2010, 06:58 AM

http://www.fof-woof.com/forum/showpost.php?p=50021&postcount=9

Flasch186

01-04-2010, 07:17 AM

when you look at this more can you give your opinion on how that mght apply to Reneg house rules in many of the MP leagues now?

Ben E Lou

01-04-2010, 07:22 AM

It won't affect those in any significant way. Overall, it appears to be around 5-10% more money being requested. Look at your league and tell me what would happen if every team had to use only 90% of the cap instead of 100%. (My guess = business as usual).

For WOOF, where we use only 75% of the cap, it *may* mean scrapping the last-year-only rule, or keeping it and moving up to 80%. I don't think much more than that, though.

gstelmack

01-04-2010, 08:26 AM

Just getting around to doing the update here at work for FOWL now that it's rolling again, and one problem folks may be having is the order of instructions on the web site:

Installing the update will not affect your saved games in Front Office Football 2007. Download the installation package (http://www.solecismic.com/support/orders/FrontOfficeFootball2007.exe) and run it. You should be all set. If your license was active before the reinstall, it should remain active. You do not need to remove it if you're given that option.
Installing the update may require that you first remove the existing game using the Add/Remove Programs or Programs and Features option from the Windows Control Panel. There is no need to unlicense the game manually in this case. Careers that you began with the original release are fully compatible with the updated version. However, if you are updating to Version 6.3 for the first time (this does not apply to completely new installations), you should download and run the Version 6.3 Saved Game Converter (http://www.solecismic.com/support/support/FOFtoVista.exe) to maintain your saved games.

Maybe that last paragraph should come first?

Chubby

01-04-2010, 09:47 AM

Did being over the cap penalites change? Used to be you only lost a 3rd round pick now I lost:
Pre Draft lost current year's 2nd
Pre Training Camp lost 2 year's out 3rd
Ex Season 1 lost next year's 2nd

Tasan

01-04-2010, 04:54 PM

Ugh. I just wonder, if you're going to move the export, leagues, etc files to a new place, why choose another difficult to browse to location instead of something that makes sense, like My Docs/Solecismic? Exporting could have been a bit more painless. Who puts ANYTHING in the app data area that needs to be accessed by the user???

pedersenkirk

01-04-2010, 05:28 PM

johnnyshaka

01-04-2010, 06:21 PM

Question for you folks, I've played FOF since 2001 but now I'm using a Mac for business purposes. I still have my 2007 license intact and I'm wondering if I'd be able to play FOF with Boot Camp/Parallels?

Thanks.

I haven't done it that way but have used VirtualPC (free virtual machine app similar to vmware) and that works wonderfully.

pedersenkirk

01-04-2010, 06:44 PM

I haven't done it that way but have used VirtualPC (free virtual machine app similar to vmware) and that works wonderfully.

Is that similar to Virtual PC for Mac?

Firefly

01-04-2010, 07:22 PM

I'm surprised the trade screen check with rookies wasn't fixed.

You sure? I don't see any red in my rookies in the trade information screen. Maybe your commish hasn't upgraded?

Chubby

01-04-2010, 07:47 PM

You sure? I don't see any red in my rookies in the trade information screen. Maybe your commish hasn't upgraded?
Commish upgrade wouldn't affect it since it's your comp.

Right click on a rookie in the trade screen after they have signed a contract but before training camp.

Chubby

01-04-2010, 07:48 PM

gstelmack

01-04-2010, 08:41 PM

As has been explained already, it's where Microsoft is forcing the data to go.

Well, sort of. Application Data is for private app data, things like .ini files, etc, that aren't for user editing but that the app wants to write. My Documents is for user editable data. In the newer OSes, there is a Saved Games space for saved games as part of their game control panel and other game features, but that doesn't exist pre-Vista.

Technically, this isn't user editable data, so App Data sounds right, except for the multiplayer import/export process which means the user DOES need access, and App Data is intentionally hard for the user to get to, since the user isn't supposed to be mucking around in there.

Also, FWIW, Microsoft doesn't FORCE the data to go anywhere. Microsoft just blocks the user from writing to Program Files to help keep viruses from changing .exes on you.

johnnyshaka

01-04-2010, 10:23 PM

Is that similar to Virtual PC for Mac?

Actually, check that, I'm currently using VirtualBox...and yes, for Mac.

gstelmack

01-06-2010, 08:27 AM

One thing I'd love to see is for combine numbers to be colored on the player report window like they are in the draft window. Mostly because it would make FOWL much easier to work with since we're signing draftees as FAs long after that window is gone to use as a reference.

Firefly

01-06-2010, 12:31 PM

Commish upgrade wouldn't affect it since it's your comp.

Right click on a rookie in the trade screen after they have signed a contract but before training camp.

Ohhh... right click... yeah, it shows red all right.

Firefly

01-08-2010, 04:14 PM

So offenses complete less passes now. At first I thought PassDefense% was the only culprit, but now I'm not so sure. Is pass rush up, too? It sure seems like it.

Firefly

01-11-2010, 09:55 AM

We're half way through the season in the AUFL. The first 3 weeks were played with 6.2, the last 5 with 6.3. Completion% is down but, surprisingly, PassDefense% is about the same it's always been. It's PassRush% that is up. And, another surprise, YardsPerAttempt is also the highest in the history of the league. YardsPerCarry is also way above any other season's average.

Hammer

01-11-2010, 10:30 AM

Ben E Lou

01-11-2010, 11:20 AM

Firefly

01-11-2010, 12:38 PM

Could be sample size. Five games isn't very much to go on. That said, the patch can't do anything about the talent that's in existing leagues. Check the QBs in the default roster file. The talent is nowhere close to what we have in MP leagues.

I know. And besides, we have 3 games in there making noise. But, like you mention, MP and SP don't always work the same, so I thought it was worth mentioning. Also, this is a historical league. The talent isn't as much as in regular MP leagues. In any case, it's probable that QBs were completing a record number of passes in the first 3 games, because all the top QBs I've looked at individually seem to have dropped in Completion% after week 3.

Examples:

-Warren Moon is completing 67% for the season, a personal best. But his top 3 games in % for the year were the first 3.

-John Elway is completing 70.8%, second most in his career, but he was completing 76.3 after 3 weeks.

-Dan Marino is also completing a personal best 63.1%, but his lowest % in the first 3 games was 68.0%

Ben E Lou

01-14-2010, 04:30 AM

Based on SP play, SP testing, and the just-completed FOWL season on 6.3, I feel confident in drawing two conclusions:

1. Talent makes a significantly bigger difference now on both sides of the ball.
2. There's significantly more talent in the MP leagues than there should be at QB, and not nearly enough at safety. Just look at the default rosters to see what I mean.

As a result of these two things, MP leagues won't see huge downturns in offense--unless of course they're ones like FOWL which have less talent at QB. FOWL offense dropped significantly. 2041 was the first season on 6.3.

2038: 21.4ppg, 4.51ypc, 6.40ypa, 61.4% completions, 83.0 QB Rtg, 5 QBs with 40+ Tds
2039: 20.9ppg, 4.47ypc, 6.38ypa, 60.8% completions, 81.2 QB Rtg, 5 QBs with 40+ Tds
2040: 20.5ppg, 4.31ypc, 6.29ypa, 60.8% completions, 81.6 QB Rtg, 3 QBs with 40+ Tds
2041: 19.5ppg, 4.20ypc, 6.19ypa, 57.9% completions, 75.5 QB Rtg, 1 QB with 40+ Tds

The most dramatic difference could be seen in my 36/36 QB who had been tearing up the league. (We have good WRs and TE.) He's still putting up good numbers with the star-studded cast around him, but he's most certainly playing like a mortal now.

Ben E Lou

01-14-2010, 04:41 AM

Dola...

And even the best QB-WR-WR trio in the league experienced a significant drop back into mortal range.

2040: 71.7%, 9.27ypa, 135.7rtg
2041: 65.6%, 8.78ypa, 116.8rtg

Ben E Lou

01-14-2010, 04:57 AM

Heh. Sometimes I forget that I have easy db queries available to me. Here are the last few seasons, with 2041 being the one on 6.3.

<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1"><tbody> <tr> <th>year</th> <th>rush_ypc</th> <th>pass_ypa</th> <th>pass_ypc</th> <th>cmp_pct</th> <th>pass_rtg</th> <th>ppg</th> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">2036</td> <td align="center">4.33</td> <td align="center">6.45</td> <td align="center">10.50</td> <td align="center">61.38</td> <td align="center">84.553181</td> <td align="center">20.99</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">2037</td> <td align="center">4.38</td> <td align="center">6.55</td> <td align="center">10.51</td> <td align="center">62.34</td> <td align="center">85.486229</td> <td align="center">20.94</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">2038</td> <td align="center">4.51</td> <td align="center">6.40</td> <td align="center">10.41</td> <td align="center">61.41</td> <td align="center">83.084941</td> <td align="center">21.43</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">2039</td> <td align="center">4.47</td> <td align="center">6.38</td> <td align="center">10.49</td> <td align="center">60.79</td> <td align="center">81.274508</td> <td align="center">20.88</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">2040</td> <td align="center">4.31</td> <td align="center">6.29</td> <td align="center">10.34</td> <td align="center">60.82</td> <td align="center">81.698473</td> <td align="center">20.52</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">2041</td> <td align="center">4.20</td> <td align="center">6.19</td> <td align="center">10.69</td> <td align="center">57.87</td> <td align="center">75.487284</td> <td align="center">19.51</td> </tr></tbody></table>

Hammer

01-14-2010, 09:54 AM

So gameplanning is now going to have less of an impact? Talent takes a larger share of the overall net result.

Ben E Lou

01-14-2010, 11:42 AM

So gameplanning is now going to have less of an impact? Talent takes a larger share of the overall net result.Hard to say completely yet, but my take so far is that game planning is still important, but you can't get away with using the same game plan in every single league no matter what any more, unless you have similar strengths. Basically, I'd been using one uber-gameplan in IHOF, WOOF, FOFL, FOWL, and OSFL. In the last 3-4 seasons in all those leagues, my teams were *averaging* somewhere north of 50 TD passes per season, using the identical game plan for the 36/36 QB above as for the 93/93 guy I have in WOOF. My observation so far is that planning around my talent is more important than it used to be.

Sef0r

01-14-2010, 03:38 PM

My observation so far is that planning around my talent is more important than it used to be.

Agreed. I used my gameplan from 2039 FOWl season in the pre season and it failed. Not surprising as it failed with similar talent in a SP game I created for the FOWL testing. I adjusted and continued to make changes until my SP team (again, with similar talent) could produce and win. It translated very well into the most recent FOWL season sim.

nilodor

01-14-2010, 04:43 PM

I'm still getting my hands around the patch, but I'm finding this to be true so far.

And on another note, the TCY import has changed dramatically. I might start using TCY files in SP now.

What differences are you noticing? Just curious as it will affect all of the historical stuff as well.

Ben E Lou

01-15-2010, 12:58 PM

What differences are you noticing? Just curious as it will affect all of the historical stuff as well.
Significantly less talent overall, which is a good thing. :D

On another note, in a league where salary cap is~$175M]

http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/Ben%20E%20Lou/spence.png

Hoya1

01-16-2010, 12:53 PM

Significantly less talent overall, which is a good thing. :D

On another note, in a league where salary cap is~$175M]

http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/Ben%20E%20Lou/spence.png

woa!!!!!!!

MIJB#19

01-16-2010, 03:00 PM

I'm surprised the trade screen check with rookies wasn't fixed.There's nothing gained in that window. The same information is available in the Roster Attributes screen. If we'regoing to call this a fixable thing, then the real bug is in the roster screen where the red/green isn't shown for rookies that signed their contract.

MIJB#19

01-16-2010, 03:06 PM

I haven't seen this reported yet, and I don't have the wherewithal to do a lot of checking/research here right now, but I'll report seeing this:

I set up 6.3 on my laptop, and started a new career. Following one draft, I now have a CB on my team with a rating of 29/83 in bump and run coverage. Checking around the league, I see a fair number of apparently mediocre DB who have ratings like this... lots of green showing in the BnR coverage skill. My recolleciton was that this was either impossible or very unusual in the older versions of the game, though I might be mis-remembering.Interesting, 29/83 would be almost impossible for Bump and Run in FOF all the way back to at least FOF2004. Generally that bars was already 2/3rd filled at 1% developed. The way you put it means either a change in scouting or in how the BnR skill develops. But neither has been reported as being part of the patch...

MizzouRah

08-09-2010, 02:03 PM

Is Jim releasing a 2010 player file?

Chubby

08-09-2010, 02:07 PM

Why would he? FOF2K11 is coming out with the 18 game regular season.

bluewave

08-10-2010, 10:35 PM

Why would he? FOF2K11 is coming out with the 18 game regular season.

Is there really going to be FOF2k11 or an update to FOF2007? I haven't heard anything about it. The game hasn't been updated in a while...

Firefly

09-02-2010, 07:16 PM

Ben E Lou

09-02-2010, 08:08 PM

I don't know if I'd call it a bug or not, but there seem to be way too many blocked FGs, especially short ones. What I mean is that short FGs seem as likely to be blocked as long ones. Possibly even more?

Too bad there's no way to quantize it.Tough to say. 6.3 caused FG percentage to increase a bit in every league I checked. My assumption is that it's because red zone offense is worse, and therefore more short FGs are getting attempted.